Why do preppers stockpile guns and ammo?

[bcuzbcuz]

5 hours ago, Sleeper Cell said:

Are you serious?  You actually see no moral difference between someone who is both a serial rapist and a serial murderer (the example in Bluebell’s post) and someone who has never committed these or any other crimes?  

Isn’t “judgmentalism” essentially a function of pride and self righteousness?   Who could possibly take pride in being a better person than someone who is both a serial murderer and a serial rapist?   (Talk about “damning with faint praise!”) 

Yes, I am very serious. I can see a moral difference between a serial rapist and/or a serial murderer and someone who has not committed these crimes. But that's all on paper. Meeting anyone face to face and trying to evaluate if they have done such crimes is laughable. 

I certainly do not qualify as judge, jury and executioner even when it is confirmed that a person has done such crimes.

To your questions? You need to be more specific by what you mean about judgmentalism and how it pertains to this discussion.

[saemo]

10 hours ago, Cold Steel said:

The Ruger was the second handgun I ever bought. The only animal I would ever shoot would be for food. As for humans, that's another thing entirely. I know the evil people are capable of, and I could kill in defense of myself and my family (and others). My uncle killed for sport and I always resented it, though I loved him dearly. 

In our day it doesn't matter where one lives. You can be hit with an earthquake anywhere. We're also susceptible to various other attacks including biological attacks. We also can face a devastating economic collapse (both of which are prophesied). 

There are good preppers and bad preppers. Just because they have weapons is little cause for concern unless they're shaving their heads and wearing swastikas. I live in a neighborhood of Democrats. You can't always choose who your neighbors are. 

Honestly, localized disasters that went on more than a couple of days, I'd just drive to the nearest town where everything is functioning and get a hotel room. Or Airbnb it and rent a fully furnished home short term  

I would be more concerned about where I was at. I could could have everything in the world at home, but getting there might be the whole battle for me. 

[mfbukowski]

On 1/11/2016 at 11:49 PM, Stargazer said:

Question: what is a moderate supply of ammo?  100 rds?  500?  

Wouldn't it be wise to put aside a large supply of ammo that could be used for barter?

It seems like an odd compromise that requires the assumption that ammo will be useful to everyone and yet no one will use it to get what they want/need.

If it gets so bad that people are trading ammo, what's to prevent them from using it to get it all?  And what if your caliber doesn't match my caliber but if I take yours and steal your guns too, I will be better off with more guns and ammo

Please God that it never comes to that, but I am just looking at the logic here.

A moderate supply of ammo?  How many rounds can you get off before you get hit by the other guy?  More than that is too much.

Grim stuff.  Best option is make friends and share, but is that optimistic?

Best option:  Make friends with your neighbors now and teach them the gospel, then make it a community effort.  Neighborhood watch on steroids

[mfbukowski]

On 1/8/2016 at 3:06 PM, Calm said:

Not disagreeing at all with him.  Just referring to your post I quoted with the opinion that hunting might be useful in a short term disaster while in a long term with lots of people, I do agree with you that the land would be stripped pretty quickly if that was all they were depending on and likely even if they had other sources as without government control and anyone hunting whenever they wanted, with enough survivors it would be cleared out, especially if people were reacting on the basis of 'I better get all I can before it's gone'.

The bombed cities of Europe were totally deforested within weeks with people cutting trees for firewood.  Huge parks full trees laid bare.  Tree-lined boulevards reduced to stumps.

Cities are not going to be much fun if it gets to that.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, saemo said:

Honestly, localized disasters that went on more than a couple of days, I'd just drive to the nearest town where everything is functioning and get a hotel room. Or Airbnb it and rent a fully furnished home short term  

I would be more concerned about where I was at. I could could have everything in the world at home, but getting there might be the whole battle for me. 

Clearly you live in a small town, not Los Angeles or New York or Chicago.  Millions on their way out of town and all the highways broken.  Good luck with that.

[Stargazer]

Just now, mfbukowski said:

It seems like an odd compromise that requires the assumption that ammo will be useful to everyone and yet no one will use it to get what they want/need.

If it gets so bad that people are trading ammo, what's to prevent them from using it to get it all?  And what if your caliber doesn't match my caliber but if I take yours and steal your guns too, I will be better off with more guns and ammo

Please God that it never comes to that, but I am just looking at the logic here.

A moderate supply of ammo?  How many rounds can you get off before you get hit by the other guy?  More than that is too much.

Grim stuff.  Best option is make friends and share, but is that optimistic?

Best option:  Make friends with your neighbors now and teach them the gospel, then make it a community effort.  Neighborhood watch on steroids

Your logic is extremely faulty.  

• If it gets so bad that people are trading food, what's to prevent them from using a gun to get it all?  You might as well not store any food -- at least then you'd be safe from those who will kill to get food, for certain.  Of course, then you starve, but nevermind!
• Make friends and share?  Of course!  That's the best option all right.  But what about the enlightened individuals to whom it occurs that they can get more food if they cut out the middleman?  Such as you?  Best not to tempt them by storing any food at all, right?  Better safe than sorry.
• You ask, if it gets so bad that people are trading ammo, what's to prevent them from using it get it all?  Why, nothing at all!  What's that supposed to signify?  Your argument is empty.
• How many rounds can I get off before you get hit by the other guy?  I don't know!  It would depend upon how accurate you and he can shoot, and whether or not I were expecting trouble.  I had Expert Rifleman qualification in the Army.  I've hit plenty of targets the first time I've laid a bead on them. The first time my wife fired a pistol she hit the first target she fired at (a bottle).  And then proceeded to hit the next 7 out of 8 bottles I had set up.  If the first bottle had been an attacker, I don't think he would have gotten any rounds off at her.  In a survival situation I think I would be quite careful if a stranger showed up.

If I have ammo and need food, the first person to show up with food can have some ammo.  If I have food and need ammo, then we can trade.  

Normally, you make perfect sense, but in this post you come across like some kind of noob.  Do you know that most criminals do not have enough courage to stand and find in the face of deadly opposition? They prefer unarmed and docile victims: Grandma chases armed thugs from jewellry store.

The Lord endorses Mutual Assured Destruction, or Peace through Superior Firepower:

   D&C 45:70 - And it shall be said among the wicked: Let us not go up to battle against Zion, for the inhabitants of Zion are terrible; wherefore we cannot stand.

 

 

 

[bluebell]

8 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

You repeat yourself. To clarify my opinion, people who rape, murder and pillage seldom have signs around their necks identifying them as such. I have volunteered in a prison and worked with prisoners after their release. The two who come to mind were both murderers. One killed the man who, as step-dad, had exploited and raped his 4 year old son. The birth father was given 25 years. The other, while still a teenager, killed a drug dealer in his town. He served 35 years before I met him. He told me the reason he killed the dealer was based on his communist beliefs that such people were parasites on society and did not deserve to live.

Both men were very friendly, intelligent and good company. Neither one regretted their crime. Both of these men have met some of my children.

Very few rapists look like rapists. I certainly do not agree with the current espoused political opinion that rapists come from certain countries. How does one recognize a murderer, should one meet one? Pillagers are thiefs and probably look like your next door neighbours. 

My wife and I have discussed this and are in total agreement. Should society collapse, people who show up at our door are welcome to share our food and shelter. In someways I think society has already collapsed. I work with Syrian, Turkish and Iraqi refugees three nights a week. We are trying to work out the details of how we can made our upstairs rooms available for a refugee family. 

And no, my life is not worth more than any of the above mentioned.

 

To clarify, I'm talking about a person who was actively trying to rape and/or murder you or a loved one. 

That's what people mean when they say they would kill someone in self defense. That's the situation that people are talking about being in, where you said your life would not be worth more than the person actively trying to harm you. 

That's the situation I'm referring to when I ask you to clarify how your life or a loved one's life could be worth the same as a person doing that.

No one is talking about trying to guess who the bad guys are so they can kill them. Or just killing anyone who comes near them. I'm unsure why you thought anyone was referring to something like that. 

[rodheadlee]

On 1/10/2016 at 2:12 PM, Zakuska said:

Did the 5 wise virgins share with the 5 foolish ones?

No worries bro, I wouldn't eat your food if it was the last food on the face of the earth, if you don't want to share. My God has the ability to raise the dead. So it's ok with me if I die.

[Tacenda]

7 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

It seems like an odd compromise that requires the assumption that ammo will be useful to everyone and yet no one will use it to get what they want/need.

If it gets so bad that people are trading ammo, what's to prevent them from using it to get it all?  And what if your caliber doesn't match my caliber but if I take yours and steal your guns too, I will be better off with more guns and ammo

Please God that it never comes to that, but I am just looking at the logic here.

A moderate supply of ammo?  How many rounds can you get off before you get hit by the other guy?  More than that is too much.

Grim stuff.  Best option is make friends and share, but is that optimistic?

Best option:  Make friends with your neighbors now and teach them the gospel, then make it a community effort.  Neighborhood watch on steroids

This is starting to sound just like a scene from "Walking Dead".

[Tacenda]

7 minutes ago, rodheadlee said:

No worries bro, I wouldn't eat your food if it was the last food on the face of the earth, if you don't want to share. My God has the ability to raise the dead. So it's ok with me if I die.

I'm with you, I'd rather die first, then compromise my morals or integrity.  May sound kind of silly, but couldn't watch people killing over food.  

[mfbukowski]

9 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Your logic is extremely faulty.  

• If it gets so bad that people are trading food, what's to prevent them from using a gun to get it all?  You might as well not store any food -- at least then you'd be safe from those who will kill to get food, for certain.  Of course, then you starve, but nevermind!
• Make friends and share?  Of course!  That's the best option all right.  But what about the enlightened individuals to whom it occurs that they can get more food if they cut out the middleman?  Such as you?  Best not to tempt them by storing any food at all, right?  Better safe than sorry.
• You ask, if it gets so bad that people are trading ammo, what's to prevent them from using it get it all?  Why, nothing at all!  What's that supposed to signify?  Your argument is empty.
• How many rounds can I get off before you get hit by the other guy?  I don't know!  It would depend upon how accurate you and he can shoot, and whether or not I were expecting trouble.  I had Expert Rifleman qualification in the Army.  I've hit plenty of targets the first time I've laid a bead on them. The first time my wife fired a pistol she hit the first target she fired at (a bottle).  And then proceeded to hit the next 7 out of 8 bottles I had set up.  If the first bottle had been an attacker, I don't think he would have gotten any rounds off at her.  In a survival situation I think I would be quite careful if a stranger showed up.

If I have ammo and need food, the first person to show up with food can have some ammo.  If I have food and need ammo, then we can trade.  

Normally, you make perfect sense, but in this post you come across like some kind of noob.  Do you know that most criminals do not have enough courage to stand and find in the face of deadly opposition? They prefer unarmed and docile victims: Grandma chases armed thugs from jewellry store.

The Lord endorses Mutual Assured Destruction, or Peace through Superior Firepower:

   D&C 45:70 - And it shall be said among the wicked: Let us not go up to battle against Zion, for the inhabitants of Zion are terrible; wherefore we cannot stand.

 

 

 

Well I guess there was a misunderstanding.  I never advocated any of this- it was a total hypothetical.  If you notice I mentioned the logic behind tradiing ammo.  Maybe it is good to have a gun around, but stockpiling ammo is unnecessary in my view.  I am sure a box or two would be sufficient.

Everyone here speaks of hunting and the need for ammo and guns for hunting.  I think they do not live in big cities.  I do not see many deer in Los Angeles, and by the time they got to me, I think one or two of the 18 million people I live among might have imagined a venison steak on the hoof.

If it gets to trading ammo hereabouts, I will be long gone, and I don't mean to the desert, which will be impossible to reach anyway.  North is mountains, South is more cities for 150 miles, West is the Pacific and East is a hundred miles of urban fun to get through.  I had to drive through the LA riots though I live nowhere near here,  and those barely made it to the category of a "disaster".  If you have not lived through civil insurrection, I hope you never have to.  Not much risk of that in the Mormon corridor though, I am sure. 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 13, 2016 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I'm with you, I'd rather die first, then compromise my morals or integrity.  May sound kind of silly, but couldn't watch people killing over food.  

Well that's also kind of the way I feel.  Maybe a shotgun to discourage looters but if it gets to killing for food, fergitabout it.

[Stargazer]

2 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Well I guess there was a misunderstanding.  I never advocated any of this- it was a total hypothetical.  If you notice I mentioned the logic behind tradiing ammo.  Maybe it is good to have a gun around, but stockpiling ammo is unnecessary in my view.  I am sure a box or two would be sufficient.

Everyone here speaks of hunting and the need for ammo and guns for hunting.  I think they do not live in big cities.  I do not see many deer in Los Angeles, and by the time they got to me, I think one or two of the 18 million people I live among might have imagined a venison steak on the hoof.

If it gets to trading ammo hereabouts, I will be long gone, and I don't mean to the desert, which will be impossible to reach anyway.  North is mountains, South is more cities for 150 miles, West is the Pacific and East is a hundred miles of urban fun to get through.  I had to drive through the LA riots though I live nowhere near here,  and those barely made it to the category of a "disaster".  If you have not lived through civil insurrection.

Well, it didn't sound hypothetical.  It seemed to border on advocacy, I'm afraid.  Maybe it's just me.  A lot of that going around.

I wouldn't live in Southern California if they paid me.  I lived there the first 16 years of my life, but that doesn't mean I have to repeat the experience.  I am right where I like it, Olympia, Washington, where ten minutes on the road can take me to the woods (or the Puget Sound).  I can find forest wilderness well within 20 miles from my house.  

You're right that there's little point in the possession of large amounts of hunting ammo in the LA basin.  What firearm would you want for self-protection?  My choice for that environment would be an AR-15, or perhaps a Ranch Rifle, either chambered in .223.  If you don't intend to become proficient in marksmanship, then you could get away with about 4 boxes of 20 rounds each.  If after you've popped a full magazine they're still coming, well, you won't have much time to reload after your initial two mags are emptied.  But as I said, mobs and criminals are usually rather cowardly.  If there are softer targets available, then they'll likely leave you alone.

If you intend to become more than just a trigger-puller, you'll need to visit the range periodically to keep up your skills.  This requires more than 4 boxes of ammo.

[saemo]

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Clearly you live in a small town, not Los Angeles or New York or Chicago.  Millions on their way out of town and all the highways broken.  Good luck with that.

Indeed, speaking for myself and where I live. 

Edited January 13, 2016 by saemo

[bcuzbcuz]

On 11 January 2016 at 10:14 PM, Zakuska said:

That contradicts the very notion of "being prepared for tomorow" and having food storage to begin with.

Matthew 6:34 ....and there are several more

[Sleeper Cell]

13 hours ago, bcuzbcuz said:

Yes, I am very serious. I can see a moral difference between a serial rapist and/or a serial murderer and someone who has not committed these crimes. But that's all on paper. Meeting anyone face to face and trying to evaluate if they have done such crimes is laughable. 

I certainly do not qualify as judge, jury and executioner even when it is confirmed that a person has done such crimes.

To your questions? You need to be more specific by what you mean about judgmentalism and how it pertains to this discussion.

As Bluebird has subsequently pointed out, nobody is talking about trying to decide who are the "bad guys," simply by looking at them.  If I saw someone in the act of committing rape or murder, you bet I am qualified to “evaluate” whether or not they have actually done these crimes.  

Do you believe it is laughable for someone to serve on a jury?  After all, it is the job of a juror to weigh the evidence and evaluate whether the accused has committed the crime.   

BTW, I do not recall anyone saying that any one person should be “judge, jury and executioner.”   Do you believe that someone who kills in self defense or to defend the life of an innocent child is acting as “judge, jury and executioner?”  

[bcuzbcuz]

5 hours ago, bluebell said:

To clarify, I'm talking about a person who was actively trying to rape and/or murder you or a loved one. 

That's what people mean when they say they would kill someone in self defense. That's the situation that people are talking about being in, where you said your life would not be worth more than the person actively trying to harm you. 

That's the situation I'm referring to when I ask you to clarify how your life or a loved one's life could be worth the same as a person doing that.

No one is talking about trying to guess who the bad guys are so they can kill them. Or just killing anyone who comes near them. I'm unsure why you thought anyone was referring to something like that. 

 

27 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Well, it didn't sound hypothetical.  It seemed to border on advocacy, I'm afraid.  Maybe it's just me.  A lot of that going around.

I wouldn't live in Southern California if they paid me.  I lived there the first 16 years of my life, but that doesn't mean I have to repeat the experience.  I am right where I like it, Olympia, Washington, where ten minutes on the road can take me to the woods (or the Puget Sound).  I can find forest wilderness well within 20 miles from my house.  

You're right that there's little point in the possession of large amounts of hunting ammo in the LA basin.  What firearm would you want for self-protection?  My choice for that environment would be an AR-15, or perhaps a Ranch Rifle, either chambered in .223.  If you don't intend to become proficient in marksmanship, then you could get away with about 4 boxes of 20 rounds each.  If after you've popped a full magazine they're still coming, well, you won't have much time to reload after your initial two mags are emptied.  But as I said, mobs and criminals are usually rather cowardly.  If there are softer targets available, then they'll likely leave you alone.

If you intend to become more than just a trigger-puller, you'll need to visit the range periodically to keep up your skills.  This requires more than 4 boxes of ammo.

You've created an entire scenario where there's a need to fire massive amounts of ammo into a crowd of people. You have a rather depraved imagination. I know you are not alone in having such strange fantasies. I have watched multiple episodes of "Preppers" and they, as a group, almost salivate, contemplating their need to use weapons to defend themselves against unknown assailants.

Fortunately, I do not live in a country where people have the need to phrase their freedom in terms of weapons. 

[saemo]

For LDS posters, just out of curiosity, do you think in time of disaster that affects an entire ward or stake that your leaders would call on you to donate your food storage to an impromptu bishop's storehouse (or something similar)?

[bluebell]

19 minutes ago, bcuzbcuz said:

 

You've created an entire scenario where there's a need to fire massive amounts of ammo into a crowd of people. You have a rather depraved imagination. I know you are not alone in having such strange fantasies. I have watched multiple episodes of "Preppers" and they, as a group, almost salivate, contemplating their need to use weapons to defend themselves against unknown assailants.

Fortunately, I do not live in a country where people have the need to phrase their freedom in terms of weapons. 

I haven't created any situation, I'm asking a simple question. It's pretty straight forward. 

Is your life or the life of a loved one worth more than the life of someone who is trying to rape or kill you/them?

[bluebell]

10 minutes ago, saemo said:

For LDS posters, just out of curiosity, do you think in time of disaster that affects an entire ward or stake that your leaders would call on you to donate your food storage to an impromptu bishop's storehouse (or something similar)?

I really have no idea. I wouldn't have a problem with doing so though. 

[Stargazer]

7 minutes ago, bcuzbcuz said:

 

You've created an entire scenario where there's a need to fire massive amounts of ammo into a crowd of people. You have a rather depraved imagination. I know you are not alone in having such strange fantasies. I have watched multiple episodes of "Preppers" and they, as a group, almost salivate, contemplating their need to use weapons to defend themselves against unknown assailants.

Fortunately, I do not live in a country where people have the need to phrase their freedom in terms of weapons. 

I have a depraved imagination?  If the crowd is just standing there minding their own business then there's no need to fire any ammo at all, and probably no need to even have weapons present and visible.  But perhaps you do not remember that during the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles there were Korean shopkeepers who defended their shops using AR-15's employed from the roofs of their buildings.  It wasn't necessary to fire into the ranks of the approaching rioters and looters.  All that was necessary was to stand there and look like they might fire on the looters.  There may have been warning shots fired into the sky, or at the ground.  The rioters and looters got the hint and went elsewhere to commit their depredations.  

You live in a country where the people are disarmed and rely upon social constructs and contracts that may at some point degrade to the point where they may not exist.  You've not said precisely where you live, but I'm sure it's somewhere in Europe.  Obviously not in Switzerland, which is armed to the teeth.  You surely remember what happened in Paris, France just a few months ago?  There is a huge potential for more of the same, and not just in France.  But of course this doesn't affect you because you wouldn't fire on attackers even if you were armed.  So you shouldn't be. 

You believe that there is something morally wrong in using deadly force to defend yourself and your family.  You've said so in the past.  And you're entitled to your opinion and you have the right to bare your throat to the wolf rather than defend it, if that's what you feel is right.  I do not subscribe to the theory that I must permit myself and my loved ones to be killed rather than act to prevent it.  I served for 8 years in the US Army, and was trained to fire massive amounts of ammo into crowds of people who are in the process of attacking.  If they are attacking me, then they have waived their right to be unmolested by me. 

Now, if it ever happens that I have to act upon my convictions as I have just expressed them, I will be surprised, and very saddened.  I do not seek violence; I don't go where I it might be present.  But if it comes to me and I cannot run from it, then I will do what I can to prevent violence against my person and that of my family.  Call me depraved if you want.  Sticks and stones, dude.  Sticks and stones.

[Tacenda]

I don't believe it's morally wrong to defend my family, I would use a gun to deter, or even shoot if they were harming my family physically such as rape or death.  But I hate guns, I'd need to learn how to shoot one first.  And avoid using if at all possible.   

Edited January 13, 2016 by Tacenda

[Anijen]

1 hour ago, saemo said:

For LDS posters, just out of curiosity, do you think in time of disaster that affects an entire ward or stake that your leaders would call on you to donate your food storage to an impromptu bishop's storehouse (or something similar)?

Yes. In fact I believe it is one reason we are asked to have a years supply, not because there is going to be a catastrophe that will last a year, but more likely not everyone will have a years supply and those that do will be able to help. I would most definitely share with a member and non-member.

Edited January 13, 2016 by Anijen

[Stargazer]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I don't believe it's morally wrong to defend my family, I would use a gun to deter, or even shoot if they were harming my family physically such as rape or death.  But I hate guns, I'd need to learn how to shoot one first.  And avoid using if at all possible.   

Have you never fired a gun?  Of any kind?

You use the word "hate", and I would like to counsel you on that.  I don't think you hate them.  How can one hate an inanimate object with no will of its own? I think you are afraid of them, and you interpret this fear as hate.  But it's important to realize what is really going on here.  Things that are not understood are easily feared.  But our feelings toward those things, once some familiarity is gained, changes character and our fear transmutes to something else.  

I was not raised with guns, but my father was a Marine, and later a police officer for a time, and he had been trained obviously to use them.  But that was either before I was born or I was too young to remember seeing him in uniform with his police revolver.   Later, whenever I happened to be in the presence of uniformed and armed police officers, it was the pistols they were carrying that got my attention -- and I was rather scared of these strange, dangerous-looking things.  I had watched cowboy and war movies and of course they had guns in them, but it just wasn't the same.   When I was around 13 I remember that my Dad bought a double-barreled shotgun -- I think it was the first firearm he had actually ever owned himself outside of the Marine Corps or the LAPD.  When he let me pick it up and hold it I was quite frightened actually, although I tried to mask it.  Intellectually I knew the shotgun wasn't loaded, but it was still scary.  And then he took me out to the local county dump and we fired it.  Of course he taught me about firearms safety first: such as always regarding the firearm as loaded, even if you just unloaded it; never pointing it at anything unless you were willing to destroy it; keep you finger off the trigger until you are just about to shoot; and so on.  

I remember him shooting the shotgun several times, and then it was my turn.  He loaded both barrels, and I stood there pointing it at the mound of dirt that was my target.  At this point I did something wrong -- a double-barrel shotgun has two triggers, one for each trigger.  He hadn't told me that I should only put a finger on one of the triggers at a time, and that after firing one barrel, only then were you supposed to move your finger to the other trigger.  I put my forefinger and middle finger into the trigger guard, each on a trigger, and pulled.  BANG!  Both barrels at once!  I got the benefit of doubled recoil, and it burst the back seam of my shirt's right shoulder!  Wow, a 13 year old kid shoots a gun for the first time and its a 12 gauge double barreled shotgun!  My shoulder was quite sore after that, and though he offered to let me fire it again I declined the honor.  But nevertheless, my attitude towards guns had changed from fear to respect.  I never handled or fired a gun again after that until I joined the Army.  And I am so glad that my Dad let me experience this.

But I suggest that you start off with something with a lot less kick!

Nowadays, after having fired thousands of rounds through many firearms over many years, it is something I do for fun and recreation.  I like to try to improve my shooting so that I hit the target close to the center as often as I can.  The thing is, a gun is just a tool, just like a knife, a hammer, or a welding torch.  They each are potentially dangerous, but they each have legitimate uses.

 

Edited January 14, 2016 by Stargazer

[Stargazer]

5 hours ago, Anijen said:

Yes. In fact I believe it is one reason we are asked to have a years supply, not because there is going to be a catastrophe that will last a year, but more likely not everyone will have a years supply and those that do will be able to help. I would most definitely share with a member and non-member.

How could one watch one's neighbors suffer hunger while we filled our own mouths with food?  Of course we would share; it would be unchristian not to.  Not to mention cruel and reprehensible.